Q&A: Rabbi’s approach regarding language change
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Rabbi’s approach regarding language change
Question
In the Rabbi’s book Two Wagons and a Hot-Air Balloon, on pp. 156–160, the Rabbi spoke about the change in linguistic style and therefore about the inability to disagree with earlier generations, since we are not speaking the same language. This did not quite fit for me with the Rabbi’s thread at https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94/
So I would be glad if the Rabbi could point me to one of his articles on the subject or address the following questions:
- Up to what point is the change in Jewish law significant? One cannot disagree with the Tannaim and Amoraim, but is that also true of the medieval authorities (Rishonim), later authorities (Acharonim), etc.?
- If there is a change in language and in the use of formal tools, then do our generation and the other generations (the medieval authorities and later authorities) stand in the same relation with regard to interpreting the Talmud? Neither of us speaks the language of the Talmud, so do we both have the same “chance” of really understanding the text?
- How does this fit with the Rabbi’s view that one should not disagree with the Shulchan Arukh, and why was it not accepted?
- What is the difference between forcing the text into a certain understanding, as Tosafot does, and disagreeing with the Talmud itself? One could argue that in some places Tosafot really does disagree with the Talmud—we see this especially in tractate Avodah Zarah regarding the attitude toward gentiles, such as Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 13a, s.v. “Abaye said” (“Can one say…”), and also 11a, Tosafot “They uproot.”
I hope this isn’t too many questions.
Answer
- I’ve already written here more than once that the Talmud has authority, and after it there is no such authority. By the way, change does not mean disagreeing with earlier authorities; sometimes it only means applying their words differently (in light of changing reality).
- I didn’t understand the question.
- The Shulchan Arukh was not accepted because its commentators and other halakhic decisors disagree with it—not to mention the Yemenites.
- Tosafot does not disagree with the Talmud; it interprets it. If its interpretation doesn’t seem right to you, don’t accept it. Sometimes people prefer to stretch the wording rather than the logic, and that is part of the methods of interpretation. If you have a specific example, feel free to raise it in detail and we can discuss it.